On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
>> >
>> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> >> sourced from other animals.
>> >
>> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
>> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
>> >their children is not exploitation.
>>
>> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
>> exploitative,
>
>You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
>reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
>dairy farming.

I've been on these groups for years and understand all
the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
cruel or exploitative. That being so, according to your
criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
a valid vegan food item.

>Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
>antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves, and
>what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
>dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
>apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
>anything but "relief" for cows.

I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
I don't already know.

>> so if your only objection to it as a valid
>> vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
>> then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
>> animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
>> treated or exploited.
>
>You're concluding from flawed logic.

You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
animal never suffered or was exploited.

>> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
>> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>>
>> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
>> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
>> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
>> vegan fare?
>
>And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
its milk.

>> Also, it is on record that women can receive
>> £2.30 for each pint they express.
>
>It's exploitation.

Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
fare on the grounds of exploitation. Check out the 70000
hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
exploitation.

>> What if some third-
>> World country were to take advantage of that market
>> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
>> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
>
>No.

Thank you.

>> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
>> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
>> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
>> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
>> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
>> no grounds.
>
>Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
>them from a production farm. It's exploitation.

Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?
Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
fare, do we?

>> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
>> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
>> >issues.

You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.

>> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
>> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
>> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
>
>I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
its milk without exploiting it. That being so, according
to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
from such an animal would qualify.

>While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
>making love and prostition.

Another day - yeah?

>I wonder if you can draw any
>similarities...
>
>> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
>>
>> And it fails.
>
>Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.

If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
what else would it be based on, and how will you then
be able to include human milk onto that list?

"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz"
> wrote:
> >"Digger" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James
> wrote:
> >> >"Digger" > wrote in
messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
> >> >
> >> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
> >> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
> >> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
> >> >> sourced from other animals.
> >> >
> >> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
> >> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
> >> >their children is not exploitation.
> >>
> >> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
> >> exploitative,
> >
> >You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before
you
> >reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production
and
> >dairy farming.
>
> I've been on these groups for years and understand all
> the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
> nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
> in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
> cruel or exploitative.

That's why I recommended that you look up the words in the dictionary.
You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
judgement.

> That being so, according to your
> criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
> so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
> basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
> that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
> Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
> practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
> a valid vegan food item.

You're making a statement that "relieving [sic] a cow of its milk is
not inherently cruel or exploitative" and then you ask me to
rationalize why "that milk is disqualified as a valid vegan food
item". It's your rationalization, not mine.

> >Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
> >antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves,
and
> >what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
> >dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
> >apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
> >anything but "relief" for cows.
>
> I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
> now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
> I don't already know.

Okay. I'll hold you to that statement.

> >> so if your only objection to it as a valid
> >> vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
> >> then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
> >> animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
> >> treated or exploited.
> >
> >You're concluding from flawed logic.
>
> You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
> has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
> so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
> on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
> animal never suffered or was exploited.

A calf sucking milk from it's mother isn't exploitation. It's the
natural way that a mother feeds her offspring. A human "relieving"
milk from a cow is exploitation, particularly when she is part of an
automated factory process (as you claim to know from above).

> >> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
> >> >dairy milk is exploitation.
> >>
> >> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
> >> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
> >> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
> >> vegan fare?
> >
> >And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>
> In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
> nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
> inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
> its milk.

You're not looking at the big picture (that you claim to know from
above). THINK about the factory farming, the antibiotics, the
artificial insemination, milking machines, etc. that goes into getting
cows to produce milk and tell me that's not exploiting.

> >> Also, it is on record that women can receive
> >> £2.30 for each pint they express.
> >
> >It's exploitation.
>
> Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
> fare on the grounds of exploitation.

Don't you understand that a mother feeding her baby is NOT the same as
a woman drawing milk from herself to sell for profit? The former is
NOT exploitation while the latter IS exploitation. You are trying to
equate them and that is invalid.

> Check out the 70000
> hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
> and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
> being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
> exploitation.

Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.

> >> What if some third-
> >> World country were to take advantage of that market
> >> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
> >> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
> >
> >No.
>
> Thank you.

I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.

> >> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
> >> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
> >> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
> >> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
> >> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
> >> no grounds.
> >
> >Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
> >them from a production farm. It's exploitation.
>
> Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?

You're still exploiting animals whether the egg is fertilized or not.

> Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
> include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
> has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
> in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
> fare, do we?

You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...

> >> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
> >> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
> >> >issues.
>
> You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.

No I didn't. I have consistently said that getting milk from a mother
for any other purpose than natural feeding for her offspring is
exploitation.

> >> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
> >> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
> >> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
> >
> >I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>
> In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
> its milk without exploiting it.

You're being evasive. I asked you HOW and you tell me it can be done
"in theory and in practice". TELL ME HOW!

> That being so,

There you go again basing your argument on false suppositions.

> according
> to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
> from such an animal would qualify.

BS...

> >While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is
between
> >making love and prostition.
>
> Another day - yeah?

Well, I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between
exploitation and not-exploitation.

> >I wonder if you can draw any
> >similarities...
> >
> >> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
> >>
> >> And it fails.
> >
> >Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.
>
> If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
> foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
> what else would it be based on,

No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely on
exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.

> and how will you then
> be able to include human milk onto that list?

Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
include human milk as vegan?

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:55:49 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>> >"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James > wrote:
>> >> >"Digger" > wrote in messagenewspcqm0dkbv0dhqn3727dp6i1jp1fa76fq0@4ax .com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
>> >> >> a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
>> >> >> then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
>> >> >> sourced from other animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
>> >> >animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
>> >> >their children is not exploitation.
>> >>
>> >> Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
>> >> exploitative,
>> >
>> >You must not know much about the process of producing milk.
>> >Before you reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research
>> >milk production and dairy farming.
>>
>> I've been on these groups for years and understand all
>> the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
>> nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
>> in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
>> cruel or exploitative.
>
>That's why I recommended that you look up the words in the dictionary.

Will it tell me that relieving a mother of its milk is
inherently cruel and exploitative? If so, then it must
follow that relieving a human mother of her milk is
also cruel and just as exploitative, and thereby a
non-vegan product according to you.

>You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
>judgement.

There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
and rude.

>> That being so, according to your
>> criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
>> so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
>> basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
>> that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
>> Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
>> practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
>> a valid vegan food item.
>
>You're making a statement that "relieving [sic] a cow of its milk is
>not inherently cruel or exploitative" and then you ask me to
>rationalize why "that milk is disqualified as a valid vegan food
>item". It's your rationalization, not mine.

It exactly your rationalisation, as shown by your earlier
comments regarding exploitation. If cows milk is to be
disqualified as vegan fare because procuring it exploits
the animal, you then have no rational basis on which to
exclude it if the animal can be shown not to have suffered
or been exploited. And, if cows milk is always said to
exploit the animal, then you cannot go on to claim that
using human milk isn't or can't be the same form of
exploitation. In short, you have no rational basis at all.

>> >Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
>> >antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new
>> >born calves, and what they do to dairy cows who
>> >stop producing. Then check your dictionary for "cruel"
>> >and "exploit" and think about how they might apply to
>> >dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
>> >anything but "relief" for cows.
>>
>> I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
>> now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
>> I don't already know.
>
>Okay. I'll hold you to that statement.

You can.

>> >> so if your only objection to it as a valid
>> >> vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
>> >> then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
>> >> animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
>> >> treated or exploited.
>> >
>> >You're concluding from flawed logic.
>>
>> You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
>> has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
>> so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
>> on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
>> animal never suffered or was exploited.
>
>A calf sucking milk from it's mother isn't exploitation. It's the
>natural way that a mother feeds her offspring. A human "relieving"
>milk from a cow is exploitation

No, it is not. There are many instances where relieving a
cow of its milk is entirely ethical. The milk can be used to
feed her offspring if it's having problems trying to feed, for
example, so it's perfectly clear to see that milking a cow is
not inherently cruel or exploitative as you claim. That being
so, according to your criteria concerning exploitation as a
rule for identifying vegan fare, any leftovers from what
our hypothetic calf didn't finish will qualify as vegan fare.

> particularly when she is part of an
>automated factory process (as you claim to know from above).
>
>> >> >The case in which human mothers feed their children
>> >> >dairy milk is exploitation.
>> >>
>> >> If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
>> >> non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
>> >> who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
>> >> vegan fare?
>> >
>> >And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>>
>> In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
>> nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
>> inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
>> its milk.
>
>You're not looking at the big picture

Rather, you're looking at the smaller picture when asserting
all cows milk to be inherently cruel and always exploitative.
It isn't. The diary industry as it stand is, and that's why I
want it all pulled down, but cows milk isn't always an
unethical source for food. It will never be a valid vegan
source of food, but that doesn't mean to say milk must
then be an unethical food source either.

(that you claim to know from
>above). THINK about the factory farming, the antibiotics, the
>artificial insemination, milking machines, etc. that goes into getting
>cows to produce milk and tell me that's not exploiting.

I won't because it is, but that doesn't mean to say milk
can't be sourced ethically or by exploiting the animal.
If you do, then you must also acknowledge that human
milk can be unethically obtained and thereby not qualify
as proper vegan fare.

>> >> Also, it is on record that women can receive
>> >> £2.30 for each pint they express.
>> >
>> >It's exploitation.
>>
>> Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
>> fare on the grounds of exploitation.
>
>Don't you understand that a mother feeding her baby is NOT the same as
>a woman drawing milk from herself to sell for profit?

The scenario you called exploitation was of a woman
expressing milk for other babies at £2.30 a pint, not
a mother feeding her own child. Now that you've
acknowledged human milk can be and is exploited you
have no basis on which to include it as proper vegan
fare if your rule of logic is to be consistent.

>The former is
>NOT exploitation while the latter IS exploitation. You are trying to
>equate them and that is invalid.
>
>> Check out the 70000
>> hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
>> and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
>> being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
>> exploitation.
>
>Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.

Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
infants from being vegan.

>> >> What if some third-
>> >> World country were to take advantage of that market
>> >> and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
>> >> for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.

And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.

>> >> As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
>> >> qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
>> >> for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
>> >> still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
>> >> basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
>> >> no grounds.
>> >
>> >Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
>> >them from a production farm. It's exploitation.
>>
>> Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?
>
>You're still exploiting animals whether the egg is fertilized or not.

The egg was never alive, so nothing has been exploited there.
The hen that laid it doesn't even know of its existence after
leaving it in the hedgerow, so nothing's been exploited there
either. As nothing has been exploited, why doesn't that egg
qualify as proper vegan fare? Could it be that there's
something else that disqualifies it, such as the fact that it's
an animal product?

>> Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
>> include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
>> has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
>> in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
>> fare, do we?
>
>You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...

There's no need to be rude. If non-fertilised eggs can be
sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
that another component is there that disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?

>> >> >You can't just blanket define anyone who
>> >> >comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
>> >> >issues.
>>
>> You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.
>
>No I didn't. I have consistently said that getting milk from a mother
>for any other purpose than natural feeding for her offspring is
>exploitation.

And thereby disqualifying that expressed milk as a non-vegan
food source because of the exploitation involved in procuring
it, according to you. If that milk is gained by exploiting women,
as you asserted earlier, then the milk by dint of that exploitation
would no longer qualify as proper vegan fare. Did you check
out those 70000 hits on human milk banks? All non-vegan,
according to your rule.

>> >> Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
>> >> list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
>> >> cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.
>> >
>> >I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
>>
>> In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
>> its milk without exploiting it.
>
>You're being evasive. I asked you HOW and you tell me it can be done
>"in theory and in practice". TELL ME HOW!

I've given you at least two examples already.
1) Helping a cow by relieving her of her heavy burden isn't
exploiting her if leaving her makes her suffer all the worse.
2) Drawing milk from her to feed her struggling calf wouldn't
be exploiting her or her calf.

There's just two examples where milk can be sourced without
exploiting cows, so to claim all cows milk is always inherently
exploitative with these two exceptions in mind would be false.

>> That being so,
>
>There you go again basing your argument on false suppositions.

I've shown that they aren't false assumptions.

>> according
>> to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
>> from such an animal would qualify.
>
>BS...

Your criteria for excluding milk relies on whether the
female has been exploited while procuring it rather
than on the basis of it being an animal product. It must
now follow that cows milk qualifies so long as the cow
can be shown not to have been exploited.

>> >While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is
>between
>> >making love and prostition.
>>
>> Another day - yeah?
>
>Well, I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between
>exploitation and not-exploitation.
>
>> >I wonder if you can draw any
>> >similarities...
>> >
>> >> >Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.
>> >>
>> >> And it fails.
>> >
>> >Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.
>>
>> If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
>> foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
>> what else would it be based on,
>
>No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely on
>exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.

Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
fare is wrong and inconsistent.

>> and how will you then
>> be able to include human milk onto that list?
>
>Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
>include human milk as vegan?

That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
animal product.

"Digger" > wrote in message
...

This will be my last post in this thread. You are digging (no pun
intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.

> >You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
> >judgement.
>
> There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
> and rude.

I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.
Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
explanation.

> >Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.
>
> Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
> as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
> infants from being vegan.

Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
in a realistic or meaningful way. Since an infant is incapable of
making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.

> >I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.
>
> And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
> thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
> my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
> exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
> in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
> being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
> it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.

I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that. In fact, I have repeatedly
stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.

> >You're really trying to pick nits to prop yourself up...
>
> There's no need to be rude.

I'm not being rude. You are (purposefully?) not seeing the big picture
regarding exploitation and veganism. Instead, you are trying to find
any little IMPOSSIBLE exception that might salvage your argument.

> If non-fertilised eggs can be
> sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
> Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
> that another component is there that disqualifies these
> eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
> exploitation?

You will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
ethically" as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

> >No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is based solely
on
> >exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
>
> Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
> been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
> road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
> we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
> fare is wrong and inconsistent.

If you want to eat road-kill and call yourself a "vegan" then go for
it...

> >Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
> >include human milk as vegan?
>
> That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
> qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
> animal product.

The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
without exploiting them in some way.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...

> there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens;
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary'
is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them.

> The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
> without exploiting them in some way.

I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk.
Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:40:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

>"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>
>> there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.
>
>I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens;
>http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary'
>is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them.

Probably the most sickening example of overgrazing
I've ever seen! ;-)

>> The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
>> without exploiting them in some way.
>
>I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk.

Perfectly ethical to drink, in my opinion, even though
I believe it's not a vegan food item.

>Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time.

Now you've done it! What's a female kid called: a kiddoe
or something?

"Digger" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:40:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> >"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.
> >
> >I'd have to disagree with that. These are 'my' chickens;
> >http://www.iol.ie/~creature/vicious.html (the 'commentary'
> >is obviously sarcasm). They'll lay eggs, and leave them.
>
> Probably the most sickening example of overgrazing
> I've ever seen! ;-)

The bare patch is recently-shifted earth, and it was taken early spring.

> >> The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
> >> without exploiting them in some way.
> >
> >I hand-raised a nanny goat, who quite happily provides milk.
>
> Perfectly ethical to drink, in my opinion, even though
> I believe it's not a vegan food item.

Vegan, it isn't. Ethically obtained, it is.

> >Her kid is grown and still with her- weaned in her own time.
>
> Now you've done it! What's a female kid called: a kiddoe
> or something?

A female kid.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:49:24 -0400, "C. James Strutz" > wrote:
>"Digger" > wrote in message ...
>
>This will be my last post in this thread.

Is it because you can't defend your position regarding
what qualifies vegan foods, or is it because you can't
defend your position regarding what disqualifies them?

>You are digging (no pun
>intended) in your heals to support rationales that are nonsensical.

My argument is merely that milk, whether from a lion,
cow or woman cannot be said to be vegan fare because
it consists wholly of animal fats and proteins. There's
nothing nonsensical about that.

Your argument, on the other hand, is that milk, or any
other non-vegan fare is based *solely* on whether any
exploitation is involved, and here's your quote below to
prove it;

"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

That being the case, your argument is nonsensical when
it comes to explaining why scavenged meat and eggs are
disqualified as valid vegan fare. What you're failing to
consider is that there's an extra qualifier to vegan fare,
and that qualifier is based on whether the food is animal-
based or not.

>> >You either don't know what they mean or you have questionable moral
>> >judgement.
>>
>> There's no need for you to start getting aggressive
>> and rude.
>
>I'm being serious, not rude. If you can't understand the treatment
>involved in exploiting dairy cows is not in their best interest (to
>say the least) then your moral judgement must be called into question.

I've told you several times now that I find the dairy
industry inherently cruel and want it all be pulled
down because of it. You ignored that and then called
my moral judgment into question, and below this line
you're now saying I'm ignorant as well. That's being
unnecessarily aggressive and rude, especially while
I've been perfectly reasonable and polite throughout
this whole conversation.

>Besides, I gave you the benefit of doubt by suggesting that you
>consult a dictionary since ignorance can be the only other reasonable
>explanation.

Your unnecessary and aggressive behaviour here isn't
called for. If you can't discuss these issues in a more
courteous way, then I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to
buckle up and prepare yourself for a long and bumpy
ride. Is that the way you want things to go, or are you
going to start behaving yourself?

>> >Again, it's your rationalization and not mine.
>>
>> Yours. By disqualifying human milk gained exploitatively
>> as proper vegan fare, you've also disqualified all those
>> infants from being vegan.
>
>Veganism is a personal choice. It's not something that can be imposed
>in a realistic or meaningful way.

No one is saying it can, but when disqualifying human
milk on the grounds of exploitation you automatically
disqualify all infants currently receiving expressed milk
as vegans too. I've no problem with disqualifying all
suckling infants on the basis that what they feed on is
an animal product, but you seem to be of the opinion
that, if a child nourishes herself directly from her mother,
then she is nourishing herself in the proper vegan way on
vegan fare, but if that child were to nourish herself from
the expressed milk of others, then she would be nourishing
herself on non-vegan fare because of the possibility of
exploitation involved in procuring it.

> Since an infant is incapable of
>making that sort of decision on it own then it can't be vegan.

I disagree, since I've brought up four vegans (3 lapsed)
and have a vegan grandson of 5. Neither my children or
my grandson were at an age where they could make that
kind of decision for themselves, yet I believe they were
still vegan by dint of their diet and lifestyle nevertheless.

>> >I don't know why you're thanking me. It's exploitation.
>>
>> And thereby, according to your rule, non-vegan. I'm
>> thanking you because you've effectively demonstrated
>> my point. Human milk, though not inherently cruel or
>> exploitative to procure is a non-vegan food if procured
>> in a cruel or exploitative way, according to you. That
>> being so, you have no rational basis on which to promote
>> it at the expense of other milks as vegan fare.
>
>I did not "promote [exploited milk] at the expense of other milks as
>vegan fare". Nowhere have I said that.

I haven't claimed that you have. If you read my paragraph
again you'll see that I'm referring to human milk. I then go
on to explain that though it isn't inherently exploitative to
procure, it can be and is procured exploitatively in some
circumstances, just like any other milk. That being so, you
have no basis on which to promote it (human milk) at the
expense of other milks if exploitation is your only guide,
since both can be and are procured exploitatively.

>In fact, I have repeatedly
>stated the opposite. Read carefully: exploited milk is not vegan fare.

I agree that it isn't, but on the basis that it's an animal
product rather than on the basis of exploitation. If milk
is disqualified on the basis of exploitation, then you have
no rational basis on which to disqualify cows milk if that
animal can be shown not to have been exploited, so not
only does your rule allow cows milk, it disqualifies human
milk as well.

>> If non-fertilised eggs can be
>> sourced ethically as described above, why doesn't Mr.
>> Falafel include them in his vegan recipes? Could it be
>> that another component is there that disqualifies these
>> eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
>> exploitation?
>
>You will never find "non-fertilized eggs that have been sourced
>ethically"

You're quite wrong, and I think you know it, so who's
the one digging their heels in out of the two of us? Such
eggs can be and are sourced perfectly ethically without
any exploitation involved at all. That being so, according
to your criteria which qualifies vegan fare on the grounds
of exploitation, eggs sourced from hens which haven't
been exploited must qualify as vegan fare. So, back to
the question which you failed to answer; Could it be
that another component exists which disqualifies these
eggs, or do we just rely on your criteria concerning
exploitation?
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

>as an ingredient in any of Mr. Falafel's recipes. As much
>as you want to deny it, there are NO eggs that are sourced ethically.

I disagree and have shown you are very wrong.

>> >No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
>> >based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
>>
>> Then what of the meat sourced from animals that haven't
>> been exploited, such as those which die of old age, or even
>> road kill; would that meat qualify as vegan fare? If not, and
>> we both know it doesn't, then your rule for qualifying vegan
>> fare is wrong and inconsistent.
>
>If you want to eat road-kill and call yourself a "vegan" then
>go for it...

I'm not saying one can, but your criteria certainly allows
it because the animal hasn't been exploited. Your claim
is that vegan is fare is based solely on whether the
animal has been exploited;
"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation.
and that necessarily means non-exploited animals such
as road kill qualify are valid sources for vegan food. Road
kill isn't a valid source for vegan food, and the reason
for that has nothing to do with concerns about exploitation.
It's to do with the fact that road kill is an animal. Vegans
don't eat them or their derivatives.

>> >Why do you keep trying to get me to rationalize your position to
>> >include human milk as vegan?
>>
>> That's not my position. My position is that milk does not
>> qualify as a vegan food source on the basis that it's an
>> animal product.
>
>The problem with this is that you can't source any food from animals
>without exploiting them in some way.

1) Scavenged meat from road kill doesn't exploit the animal.
2) Eating one's pet dog after finding it dead doesn't exploit it.
3) Eating scavenged unfertilised eggs doesn't exploit anything.
4) Eating a dead fish found in a canal doesn't exploit it.
5) Milking a cow doesn't exploit her.
6) Milking the wife doesn't exploit her,

The list is probably a lot longer than that, and according to
your rule which qualifies vegan fare solely on the basis
of exploitation, or even the lack of it, those items qualify.

"No, you would be RIGHT in saying that "vegan fare is
based solely on exploitation", or rather non-exploitation."

In fact, according to your rule, all one need do to qualify
their animal wares as vegan food is to prove that the
animal in question hadn't been exploited. While you ignore
the essential component which disqualifies foodstuffs,
namely, that it is an animal product, you automatically
leave the way clear for all meats to be included as valid
sources of vegan food.